CONGRESS IS CHALLENGING PRESIDENT OBAMA'S USE OF MILTARY FORCE IN LIBYA, AGAIN!

House Concurrent Resolution 51by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich was drafted short and sweet.  Kucinich says that President Obama's use of American military might in Libya violates the War Powers Act.  Kucinich wants to pull our armed forces away from Libya.  There were 11 cosponsors to Kucinich's resolution.

The language of  House Concurrent Resolution 51 reads:

 
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM LIBYA.

Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya by not later than the date that is 15 days after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution.

50 U.S.C. § 1541 et seq. is the War Powers Act.  § 1541 (c) lists three available options a President, as Commander-in-Chief, for deploying America's military.  Those options are to ask the Congress for a declaration of war, engage pursuant to specific statutory authorization, or in response to a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Under the War Powers Act the President is required to give initial and regular reports to the Congress.  § 1542 says "The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

§ 1543 requires the President to make specific reports when there is no declaration of war. President Obama complied with this section of the War Powers Act with the following letter to the Speaker of House and the President of the Senate.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 21, 2011

Letter from the President regarding the commencement of operations in Libya

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE

March 21, 2011

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.

Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

Although Qadhafi's Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi's continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.

The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

BARACK OBAMA

§ 1544 of the War Powers Act triggers a sixty day period, in which the President must either get a declaration of war, or the Congress gives the President a sixty day extension, or the President can continue if the Congress is unable to convene. Congress

§ 1544 (c) is the vehicle Congress can use to pull the plug on the President's war making authority.  This is the section Representative Kucinich used as the basis for House Concurrent Resolution 51.  The House did not agree with Kucinich.  Roll Call Vote 412 saw House Concurrent Resolution 51 go down by a margin of 148 in favor to 265 opposed.  The vote totals on each side were widely bi-partisan with those opposed close to two thirds of those present and voting.  This kind of resolution requires a two thirds vote for passage. Nineteen Representatives were present but did not vote.

Although House Concurrent Resolution 51 failed, there is momentum in the House to force the President's hand.  House Concurrent Resolution 32 has been introduced by Florida Republican Thomas Rooney, with16 cosponsors.

House Concurrent Resolution 32 reads:

 
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
 Expressing the sense of Congress that the President is in violation of the War Powers Resolution regarding the use of United States Armed Forces in Libya, and for other purposes.

 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

That the President is in violation of the War Powers Resolution regarding the use of United States Armed Forces in Libya and, if the President does not obtain congressional authorization for the use of the Armed Forces in Libya by June 19, 2011, the President should remove the Armed Forces from Libya and the region as soon as practicable after such date.

The difference between Kucinich's "15 days" to get out and Rooney's "as soon as practicable" exit strategy be enough to persuade the House to pass House Concurrent Resolution 32?  At this point a United Kingdom news service,  The Telegraph, is reporting  that "Col. Gaddafi pledged to never surrender and said he would fight to the death, just hours after NATO strikes targeted his Tripoli compound."  Maybe the question is whether Libyan tyrant Muammar el-Qaddafi will survive the next 12 days.  Or will Boehner keep Rooney's legislation bottled up thinking that his own H.Res. 292 will be the final word?

IOWA'S STEVE KING IS FUDGING FACTS WHEN IT COMES TO PIGFORD II CLAIMS

H. R. 4783, now called the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, has been cleared to be sent to the President for his signature. When introduced it was called a bill "To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Chile, and to extend the period from which such contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Haiti may be accelerated." When it passed the Senate its new moniker was "Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010 Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010."

The Congressional Budget Office estimate on H.R. 4783 predicts that in the decade from 2011 through 2020 this bill will reduce the overall deficit by one million dollars.  The Congressional Budget office  Report on this bill is available  at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11977/hr4783.pdf.

Upon passage of this bill Iowa's Republican Representative Steve King took to the floor during special speeches apparently to create sound bites for the rabid rightwing Republican propaganda machine. That would be conservative crank talk radio and FOX Fantasy.

Perusing the cable lineup I chanced upon Mr. King's rant. It was a cerebral moment of cognitive disconnect. Mr. King was foaming at the mouth over the provisions of law which expanded the opportunity for filing claims in the case originally styled Pigford v. Glickman.

Pigford was a case about racial discrimination by the USDA. in refusing to provide loans to black farmers when the Department of Agriculture provided those same kinds of loans to similarly situated white farmers.

Mr. King has clearly forgotten the facts about the bill for which he voted. The provision to expand the filing deadline for Pigford claimants was not, as King misrepresents, the result of a sneaky Bill or Amendment introduced by then Senator Obama, by himself.  You could reasonably guess that King was inferring that the black Senator from Illinois was inserting a black farmer boondoggle provision into the law.  That is an unfortunate but reasonable thing to say about King's remarks.

The provision of law to which King refers is §14012 of H.R. 6124, which became Public Law 110-246. That provision is summarized by the Congressional Research Service as "(Sec. 14012) States that: (1) any Pigford (discrimination) claimant who has not previously obtained a determination on the merits of a Pigford claim may obtain that determination in a civil action brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia filed within two years after the date of enactment of this Act; (2) the total amount of payments and debt relief is $100 million; and (3) the intent of Congress is to have this section liberally construed."

King's distortions suggest that the Obama Administration has caved in on the late filings of the Pigford II claims.  King ignores the facts.  First, late claims were not permitted on the basis of lack of notice as King suggests. Second, the late filers were required to demonstrate exigent circumstances which prevented their prior timely filing. Being displaced by a hurricane, for example, would qualify. Third, the numbers Mr. King, the numbers bring down your rant. Of the approximately 73,800 late filing Pigford II claims only 2,116 were permitted to go forward.

Back to King's claim about Obama introducing the Pigford II claims bill. Well, Steve is half right, but that is only because he deals in half truths. That bill was introduced by Iowa's Republican Senator Grassley, for himself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Kennedy. It was called the Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007. In the House identical legislation was introduced by Democratic Representative Robert C. Scott of Virginia and Republican Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio. So it wasn't just Mr. Obama who was singularly pushing a vague benefit towards willy-nilly black farmer claimants under Pigford II, as King would lead us to wrongly believe.

Why did all the Representative and Senators, including Barack Obama introduce the Pigford II claims bills?  You have to go back to the Judge hearing the Pigford cases.  That's Judge Paul L. Friedman who sits on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Judge Friedman expressed suprise and disappointment that the USDA was not including, in a consent decree, provisions that in the future the USDA would exert best efforts to ensure compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations prohibiting discrimination. The Congressional Research Service has published a history of the Pigford case settelements.  You can read it for yourself at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS20430.pdf.

The Black Farmers Association was paying attention to what Judge Friedman was saying and filed a $20.5 Billion Class Action lawsuit in September of 2004.  That suit was later dismissed for lack of standing.

On May 5, 2009 Iowa's Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and North Carolina's Democratic Senator Kay Hagan introduced S. 515. a bill to allow access to an unlimited fund at the Treasury to pay successful Pigford II claims.  A related bill, H.R. 899 was filed in the house by Alabama's Democratic Representative Arthur Davis.  Hawaii's Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye introduced Senate Amendment 3407 to H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act of 2009.  That Amendment made the appropriation of $1.15 billion to settle the Pigford case.  As much as that is, it is a drop in the bucket to the $20.5 billion the class action suit sought.  H.R. 4213 became Public Law 111-205,

Now remember, the Congressional Budget Office says this bill will actually drive down direct spending by $1 million over the next decade.  It isn't all that dramatic but prooves the point that you sometimes have to spend a little to save a little.

King rambled on, ignoring the facts, about Obama's connection in making the $100 million appropriated to settle Pigford claims growing into this huge Pigford II settlement.  King should have been speaking to or about Grassley.  But then Grassley would have probably told him that the Pigford II claims ended up costing less than the class action lawsuit that eventually would have found proper parties with standing. 

Steve King's mind is a mysterious place where his imagination mixes with vitriol and facts are relegated to select recognition and use.  There should be a subset of abnormal psychology dedicated to the political propagandist and Steve King should be a case study.  We could learn about demagoguery from an in depth study of Steve King's mind.

Those Pigford II claims bills were engrafted into the Farm Bill. Steve King is from Iowa and he knows about these farm bills. That brings us back to Public Law 110-246, which was introduced into the House by Democratic Representative Collin Peterson from Minnesota as the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Peterson's bill went on to become the 2008 Farm Bill,

Steve King knows about the 2008 Farm Bill, Public Law 110-246. King cast his vote to pass the bill in the House on May 22, 2008 on roll call 353. That vote required a ⅔ majority and got in a margin of 306-110. The bill went on to the Senate where it was passed without Amendment on Record Vote 144.

The 2008 Farm Bill went to the White House where President George W. Bush gave it his VETO. You can read President Bush's Veto Message at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc125/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc125.pdf.

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 came back to Congress where Steve King voted to successfully override President Bush's veto. That was on June 18, 2008 during roll call 417. The Senate vote to override Bush's veto took place on the same day during Record Vote 151.

Steve King rants against the very law for which he voted, which the President of his political party vetoed, and which he, Steve King, voted to override. Steve King boils over at the costs of these Pigford II settlements, for which he voted, as being too costly.  That's ironic.  President George W. Bush vetoed the 2008 Farm Bill because many of its provisions were too costly. Then King voted to spend the money anyway! 

Like I said, it was a cerebral moment of cognitive disconnect.

COMPROMISE ON THE FAT CAT TAX BOONDOGGLE WILL SPELL THE END OF THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY

The Fat Cat Tax Boondoggle hasn't created any jobs and it won't create any jobs. If the Fat Cat Tax Boondoggle worked then Fat Cats wouldn't be either hoarding money or shipping cash overseas to create work opportunities elsewhere. If the Fat Cat Tax Boondoggle was so bad, then stripping the Fat Cats of their Tax Boondoggle would force them to hire people, that would reduce their above the line income, and they could avoid the higher tax rate altogether by coming within the quarter million dollar save haven. That's right, everyone is supposed to get a tax break on the first quarter of a million dollars of taxable income. Everyone!

This isn't about creating jobs. This is about greed not wealth. Wealth doesn't trickle down. If you don't know what trickles down call your plumber, but I'll give you a hint. What trickes down is what's left of wealth after all of its value has been squeezed out by greed.

Seldom have I recently heard an encouraging word from Kentucky. That changed the other day with an op-ed by Nathan Sivers Boyce published in the Lexington Herald-Leader's on line edition called Kentucky.com. The op-ed is posted at: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/11/08/1515353/extending-tax-cuts-for-wealthy.html. Sivers is an Assistant Professor of Economics at Salem, Oregon's Willamette University. He earned his Ph.D. in Engineering Economics Systems from Stanford University. This fellow is no propaganda spewing slouch, he is one smart person.

Sivers first points out that hiring full time employees is down, that more persons are working part time, and more persons are spending their savings. Then he demonstrates that big businesses are borrowing cheap money to refinance their existing debt at lower interest rates, not to create more jobs. Banks, Sivers argues, are more risk averse today because they got their proverbial teat caught in the ringer during the economic meltdown. Businesses, Sivers says, are waiting for demand for their products to increase before hiring workers to make more products.

The Fat Cat Tax Boondoggle doesn't create jobs and Sivers agrees. The problematic loop between lenders lending, businesses not producing more, and jobs not being created is not worsened by eliminating the Fat Cat Tax Boondoggle. The additional tax revenue will be spent. Sivers argues for targeted spending designed to create jobs, stimulate demand, and break the problematic loop.

"Our economy is trapped in a loop. Businesses will not hire more workers until people have more money to spend, but people won't have more money to spend until they are put back to work.

As politically unpopular as this idea has become, we need carefully targeted government spending to create jobs and help break the cycle.

Allowing tax breaks for the highest-income classes has not and will not solve this problem. Letting those tax breaks expire will not worsen the problem. Rather, it will provide the resources to allow the government to spend money without saddling future generations with significantly more debt.

Don't be confused by false connections and partial arguments. There are serious problems with our economy, but extending tax cuts for the wealthy doesn't belong" [as part of the solution].

Not only will the Fat Cat Tax Boondoggle not work it will exacerbate the problem with the deficit. At the low end it will add $36 Billion to next year's deficit. That's $36 Billion we don't need to borrow. If the old adage about what to do when you are in a hole is correct, then we have to stop digging. If ending the Fat Cat Tax Boondoggle doesn't start to stop the digging, then I don't know beans.

If President Obama goes along with this ridiculous idea and makes this his first post-shellacking compromise, then the President can expect a vigorous primary challenge, one which I will support.

Obama caved in on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and got a stimulus too small to work.

Obama caved in on Health Care Reform and we got Mitt Romney's plan with no public option.

If Obama caves in on the Fat Cat Tax Boondoggle then the rich will be getting richer, the poor will be getting poorer, and that isn't change I believe in.